1. Field of Invention
The present invention pertains to the field of golf clubs, specifically to a gas vortex generated by a case-less propellant electronically fired to drive a golf ball along the course of play, including a means of changing the distance a ball will travel.
2. Background Art
The recreational sport played on a golf course utilizes many types of golf clubs with varying face angles. Generally golf clubs are swung in an arc starting above the users head. This creates a club face velocity that imparts kinetic energy to the ball positioned on the ground or a tee. A shorter arc traveled by the club results in the transfer of less kinetic energy thereby varying the distance the ball travels. A key element of playing the game requires' controlling the precise direction and distance the ball travels along the course of play. Many users find playing the game of golf extremely challenging or unable to participate. To that end, many prior art attempts have been submitted to overcome this problem.
Clark disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 769,939 issued Sep. 13, 2004 a means of adding additional energy imparted to the ball by the release of energy stored in a mechanical compressed spring. Driving the ball occurs by swinging the club head in a downward arc contacting the ball thereby triggering the energy release. The practical success of this concept was limited since most of the difficulty occurred by a swing error due to a heavier club and user proficiency. Additionally the ball compression energy release, the club head mechanical spring energy release and the club head velocity kinetic energy release will not result in the sum of the three sources and thereby, not providing any improvement.
Celestin discloses in French Pat. No. 1,181,539 issued Jun. 15, 1959 a golf club that uses an explosive charge to add additional energy to the club head velocity created by the user swinging the club. The club design apparatus being heavier is likely to cause an errant swing failing to trigger the device. Improved performance in driving the ball would be poor because the compressed energy in the ball would not occur at the precise instant the explosive charge occurred.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,170,357 issued Oct. 9, 1979 to Greer also employs an explosive charge designed to add kinetic energy to a golf ball when detonated by a swinging motion of a club face. This approach is not helpful for the same reason as that of a patent by Clark. Swinging a club with the added weight and hitting a sweet spot detonator to add explosive energy to a ball being compressed with kinetic energy is extremely difficult. The stored energy sources will not release simultaneously, thereby failing to solve the problem. The preceding patents require the user to swing a club, which is difficult even under conventional circumstances by a proficient user. Therefore the very problem the patents attempt to address and improve is defeated by the very means utilized.
The prior art issued Jun. 4, 1996 to Taylor et al discloses in U.S. Pat. No. 5,522,594 a golf club designed to impart kinetic energy upon a ball without swinging said club. Instead it is placed in a static position adjacent to said ball waiting for an impact by an external striker plate being affixed to one end of a narrow rod to be propelled by an explosive charge against a piston affixed to the opposite end of said rod. The Taylor et el invention includes a hollow head containing an oval shaped cylinder bore housing said piston, rod and external striker plate that seats into a recess in the retracted position. Said rod is guided in and out of said hollow head oval shaped cylinder bore through a bushing-bearing located on the clubface. The explosive charge contained in a rectangular shaped cartridge holder fitted into a slot that positioned the active cartridge above an orifice in the holler head oval shaped cylinder bore. A handle with a holler shaft that contains a trigging device with a spring and firing pin rod, extended into the holler head designed to fire said cartridge releasing high-pressure gas into a holler head oval cylinder port that directs the high pressure gas on to the top of said piston when the user actuates the trigger, thereby imparting kinetic energy upon the ball.
There were many problems with the Taylor et al invention that resulted in poor performance. The tremendous force caused the striker plate return spring to deform and said piston and striker plate to detach from said rod as a result of mechanical failure. The high pressure gas failed to burn completely leaving a residue that caused said piston to jam after a few cycles. The bushing-bearing containing petroleum lubrication changes into a sticky residue as a result of a chemical reaction when it is exposed to said high pressure gas, which restricted the smooth travel of said piston, small diameter rod and striker plate thereby causing failure. The hollow head being made of aluminum failed to withstand the wear factor caused by the said piston travel, resulted in failure. The cartridge holder being shaped with a flat surface failed to maintain an adequate seal thereby releasing high-pressure gas, thereby reducing the kinetic energy produced. Aside from the poor performance there were no means to adjust the ball travel distance.
Another prior art issued Oct. 6, 1998 to Taylor attempted in U.S. Pat. No. 5,816,927 again failed to achieve a clean complete powder burn resulting in parts jamming and said ball travel, failed as a result of most of the high-pressure gas being dissipated on the top of the piston before reaching the port designed to decrease the pressure, as a result said Taylor invention, failed to change the distance a ball would travel. This invention provided a hollow head fitted with a separate internal cylinder mounted within the aluminum embodiment containing the same design piston and rod attached to said external striker plate in the same manner as the Taylor et al patents, as a result sustained the same rate of failure. The Taylor patent did not address the piston rod bearing lubrication residue problem, which also continued to fail.
The high-pressure cartridges were contained in ducts around a wheel circumference and fired by a firing pin protruding through a hollow shaft into the head assembly striking each cartridge in a revolving sequence. The fired cartridges discharged into the center of the wheel, thereby passing through an injection port in the cylinder. The cone shaped center of the cartridge wheel fail to maintain an adequate seal, thereby allowing high-pressure gas to enter the adjacent cartridge ducts causing failure. The huge amount of volume between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder created a premature drop in pressure thereby causing an incomplete powder burn which fouled the piston after a few cycles of operation.
The retractor means design attempt failed to retract the piston because the pressure volume required for the retracting action did not exist. The attempted buffer spring failed to be reliable. The assembled structure proved to be impractical, costly and difficult to manufacture. Also the head assembly and associated parts failed to withstand the dynamic operating pressure involved, namely the retraction concept, the tilt safety proved to be costly and impractical.
The U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,721 B1 by Taylor incorporates a clean burning vortex generator designed to reduce the unburned powder residue, which causes friction on moving parts resulting in reduced performance. The powder residue is inherit in gun powder as a result of its chemical structure, which may only be reduced not completely eliminated.